State v. Thompson

Thompson, 2011 ND 11 (N.D. 2011) · North Dakota Supreme Court · January 12, 2011 · No. Nos. 20100175 & 20100176

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court held that a defendant was seized when a police vehicle parked directly behind his vehicle and activated its emergency lights. The court reversed and remanded because the district court had not determined whether the seizure was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion.

Court
North Dakota Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Daniel J. Crothers; Carol Ronning Kapsner; Mary Muehlen Maring; Dale V. Sandstrom; Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Jurisdiction
North Dakota
Decision date
January 12, 2011
Docket number
Nos. 20100175 & 20100176
Procedural posture
Appeal from denial of a motion to suppress following a conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence and driving under suspension.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court defers to the district court's findings of fact and resolves conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. It affirms a suppression decision when sufficient competent evidence supports the findings and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; questions of law and whether a factual finding meets a legal standard are reviewed fully.
Precedential value
Published North Dakota Supreme Court opinion
Parties
James Thompson v. State of North Dakota
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

suppression of evidencefourth amendmentsearch and seizureappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Thompson was seized when a police car parked directly behind his parked vehicle and activated its emergency lights.
  2. Whether the seizure was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion.
  3. Whether the district court erred in denying Thompson's motion to suppress.

Holdings

  1. Thompson was seized because a reasonable person would not believe he was free to leave when a police car was parked directly behind him with its emergency lights activated.
  2. The Supreme Court declined to decide whether reasonable and articulable suspicion supported the seizure because the district court had not addressed that issue.

Key quotations

We conclude Thompson was seized because a reasonable person would not believe he is free to leave when a police car is parked directly behind him with the police car’s emergency lights activated. (¶ 10)
it is not a seizure for an officer to walk up to and talk to a person in a public place. (¶ 8)
A seizure occurs . . . when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen. (¶ 9)

Factual background

At approximately 2:00 a.m., Officer Dan Poppe observed Thompson's white vehicle traveling five to ten miles per hour below the speed limit and followed it into a business parking lot. Poppe was suspicious because the police department had previously received a request for extra patrols concerning early-morning suspicious activity involving a white or light-colored vehicle. After Thompson drove to the back of the building and parked, Poppe parked directly behind him and activated the patrol car's emergency lights when Thompson's reverse lights came on. Poppe approached Thompson, smelled alcohol, and Thompson was arrested for driving under the influence and driving under suspension.

Procedural history

Thompson was charged in Morton County District Court after a police encounter in a parking lot led to his arrest for driving under the influence and driving under suspension. He moved to suppress evidence, arguing that he had been illegally seized; the district court denied the motion, concluding that no stop occurred. Thompson entered a conditional guilty plea, judgment was entered, and he timely appealed.

Remand instructions

The case was remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of whether the seizure was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…